White Nationalism And The TPP — A Tale Of Two Priorities
I vividly recall the signs being waved at the Democratic National Convention this year in Philadelphia: “No TPP!” There were chants, demonstrations, and all sorts of acrimonious discord — Bernie Sanders delegates wanted to make their position loud and clear. They were not going to countenance implementation of the TPP, which Bernie had steadfastly opposed. He’d made it a central theme of his campaign, in fact.
This wasn’t several years ago. It wasn’t the distant past. It was July — that’s when Sanders delegates coordinated one of the most historic acts of dissension at at national convention ever, in part because they were so incensed at the prospect of TPP coming into effect. Hillary Clinton decided in October 2015 that she’d ‘oppose’ the TPP, though it was always in typical lawyerly language with numerous unconvincing qualifications. She had previously called the TPP “the gold standard” of all trade deals, to be adulated and worshiped, as Trump would later joyfully point out.
Hillary also raved about the genius of TPP in many of her private speeches to despised Wall Street firms, which she concealed throughout the campaign despite promising in February 2016 to “look into” releasing them. For these and other reasons, Sanders supporters and anyone with half a brain never believed that Hillary genuinely opposed the TPP. Even her top allies such as Terry McAuliffe sought to reassure wary Democratic elites that her ostensible campaign season opposition was just a guise, and that she’d revert back to her decades-long posture on corporate trade deals after assuming the presidency.
So — it’s not an overstatement to say that TPP was a defining issue of the 2016 campaign. Sanders brought it up over and over again, virtually every day, as an issue that starkly differentiated him from Hillary. Please watch the above clips to refresh your memory. Likewise, Trump’s opposition to TPP starkly differentiated him from the rest of the GOP candidates. This was the issue on which dividing lines were drawn. In the most-watched segment of any televised debate this year, it was litigated.
OK: fast-forward to this past week. Trump, the president-elect, officially confirms that he will ditch the TPP. (I remember a lot of left/liberals complaining that Trump’s rhetoric on this was all hollow, and that he’d immediately “flip flop” upon winning the election.)
Where’s… the reaction? Where is the acknowledgment from progressives, liberals, and leftists that their claimed flagship concern of the 2016 campaign has now been realized? Please note: you don’t have to endorse Trump overall to acknowledge that yes, the election of Trump did foster an outcome that you previously desired. There will be “No TPP” now. The people who waved the signs, chanted the chants, and demonstrated vigorously can all celebrate…right?
Nobody is saying that you have to don “Make America Great Again” hats and dance in the street whenever Trump takes an action with which you agree. You just have to be honest. If TPP was a foundational issue for you, and now TPP has been nixed, you are kind of obligated to recognize Trump’s statement as a positive development. You are not required to thereby become a “Trump supporter” or withhold all future criticism of Trump. This is a mindset you should probably steel yourself for, as Trump is likely to do things over the next four years that you agree with, as well as things you disagree with. I, for instance, heartily cheer Obama’s recent commutation of federal drug offenders, but I staunchly his oppose his worldwide assassination program. There is no contradiction here.
Compare the muted or non-existent reaction to the cancellation of TPP with the several week-long uproar about emergent “white nationalism.” White nationalism, such as it exists, is a completely odious ideology and everyone should repudiate it. I hereby repudiate it. (And I’ve done so in the past, many times.) But — white nationalism is not a dominant political force in the United States. It’s espoused by a small group of freaks, cranks, provocateurs, and trolls who are adept at using social media to artificially inflate their perceived influence. The revolutionary Communist party received at least 4,173 votes nationwide in 2016, but it would be really stupid to frame that as some kind of notable political event.
Is it worth scrutinizing Steve Bannon’s ideological predilections? Yes. He’s now a powerful figure and has the ear of the president. Does his appointment to “strategist” for Trump mean that “white nationalists” have taken over the White House, with designs to implement a “white nationalist” agenda? No…probably not. That’s probably a rash conclusion to draw. It’s also a bold claim, and you’d need to substantiate it with a lot of convincing evidence. (I discussed this very question recently with Zaid Jilani, who agreed.)
Steve Bannon running the website “Breitbart” (as horrible as the website is) does not constitute sufficient evidence that his appointment means the White House has now entered the thrall of white nationalists. Steve Bannon also made idiotic pseudo-documentaries on Sarah Palin and Occupy Wall Street (the latter of which I reviewed in 2012). He’s a profiteer who tries to cater to “low information” conservatives as a business model.
Steve Bannon should be covered, but there also needs to be a sense of proportionality here. Is it really warranted that the dominant media narrative over the past two weeks has been 98% Steve Bannon versus 2% TPP? Does that kind of proportion best serve the public, inform them of important issues, and keep them apprised about the workings of their government? If you query an infrequent consumer of news about what’s gone on lately, they’d probably have picked up a snippet here or there about Bannon or the ridiculous “Nazi salute” troll controversy, but in all likelihood they probably would not have heard that TPP is dead. That’s a problem.
I made this point on Twitter a few days ago and was accused of downplaying resurgent white nationalism.
No, I’m not “downplaying” it. I’m saying the constant drumbeat of 24/7 hysteria about Trump, to the exclusion of other critical issues, is causing a sense of fatigue in the populace, and lessening trust in the media writ large (with good reason.) People are tuning out, and hence when there’s something that they should truly be worried about re: Trump, they are not going to listen. This happened during the campaign, and was a prime reason why Trump voters weren’t persuaded by the never-ending torrent of Trump “scandals” and “gaffes” that the national media relentlessly promoted. Flabbergasted journalists wondering why they couldn’t “get through” to these people should consider that “these people” don’t spend all day refreshing Twitter. They have lives, families, church functions, etc. They are busy. They pick up little bits and pieces here and there. If the “bits and pieces” they pick up seem like overwrought bogus anti-Trump nonsense, they’re just going to assume the media is out to get Trump, and therefore they’ll discount all future anti-Trump reporting.
I haven’t seen much “content” on progressive media websites about the cancellation of TPP, even though that was an outcome vociferously sought by much of their readership. Progressive and left-wing news consumers are also increasingly alienated by this superficial coverage of Trump. They too are being misinformed. Once again, I’ll repeat, and I’ll repeat as often as I have to: By all means cover the bad stuff Trump does. By all means cover Steve Bannon. But you are doing a disservice to the country by over-hyping banalities and making it seem like there are threats where there aren’t. Cover the real threats. Stop confabulating.
